2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

Cheong-gu Office

① Plaintiff U.A.

w BB, CCC, and DD, and KK deposited on December 9, 2010 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 24956, Dec. 9, 2010, KRW 171,00,000, out of KRW 565,100,000, which was deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 24956;

(C) BB, CCC, DD, and the Republic of Korea of March 8, 201, MM deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 4479 of March 8, 201;

B. Between the Defendants, the right to claim payment of 118,80,000 won deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 17941 on September 16, 2011

Recognizing that each plaintiff UA exists.

② The Plaintiff Kim Z

w between Defendant BB, CCC, and DD, the right to claim a deposit of KRW 55,00,000, out of the amount of KRW 565,10,000 deposited by KK on December 9, 2010 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 24956, Dec. 9, 2010;

(C) Between the Defendants, the Seoul Central District Court No. 22634, Nov. 15, 201, No. 2011

41,780,00 won deposited shall be subject to a claim for payment of deposit money

We confirm that each plaintiff Kim Z exists in the plaintiff Kim Z.

Defendant CCC represented Defendant CCC in the lawsuit between Defendant BB and Defendant CCC (Seoul High Court 2012Na44503), and Defendant CCC’s assistant intervenor was represented by Defendant CCC in the lawsuit brought against TT and Defendant CCC (Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap65827). However, the representation of the Plaintiffs in this case is in violation of the delegation restriction provision of Article 311 of the Attorney-at-law Act. In the event the other party raises an objection to the litigation by an attorney-at-law in violation of Article 31 of the Attorney-at-law Act, the litigation is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da15556, May 30, 2003). The lawsuit of this case by the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor is unlawful.

In this case, Article 31 (1) 1 and 2 of the Attorney-at-Law Act applies to cases where an attorney-at-law (law firm also has accepted the case from the other party to the previous case. Even according to the above argument of Defendant CCC, the plaintiffs of this case were not the other party of the parties represented by the plaintiffs in Seoul High Court 2012Na44503 case and Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap65827 case. Accordingly, there is no room to apply the above provision to cases where the attorney of the plaintiffs accepted the case from the plaintiffs and performed the lawsuit of this case, and there is no ground for the aforementioned defense.

For the purpose of this Act, the merits shall be considered as follows.

2. recognised facts;

A. The plaintiffs' exclusive agreement

On March 2005, the Plaintiff U.S.A entered into an exclusive agreement, such as the attached Form 1, with T&Wnp Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “T”), which is an entertainment planning company.

In March 2005, the plaintiff Kim Z concluded an exclusive agreement with the same content as TT.

B. Contribution to the plaintiffs' TV program

The plaintiffs contributed to each of the following programs produced by each broadcasting company, which caused the occurrence of the contribution fee claims as set forth below (hereinafter referred to as "the contribution fee claims") :

Details of program contributions

Contribution fees (cost)

1

United StatesA

KK

From June 3, 2010 to October 7, 2010

19 contributions to the Program 19 times

171,000,000

2

MM

From May 2010 to October 2010

Contribution to the program, 'non-limit', 'Nebus' and 'Nebus'.

319,270,000

3

SS

From July 11, 2010 to September 26, 2010

Contribution to the 'learning Man' Program

18,800,000

4

Z Kim

KK

From June 2, 2010 to August 18, 2010

11 contributions to the program of "non-resident";

5,000,000

5

SS

From June 1, 2010 to July 31, 2010

Contribution to the 'self-state' program, 'the World Cup' program

41,780,000

(c) Transfer, etc. of contribution fee claims;

On June 24, 2010, TT transferred to Defendant BB all claims against each broadcasting company, including each of the above claims for contributions, and notified each broadcasting company of the transfer by content-certified mail with a fixed date and the notification reached each broadcasting company on July 7, 2010.

○ As indicated below, Defendant CCC, DD, EE, etc., the creditors of TT, received each of the above-mentioned contribution fee claims against each of the broadcasting companies of TT, and each of the above decisions reached each of the broadcasting companies, and the Defendant Republic of Korea (competent 00 years old) seized each of the contribution fee claims against each of the broadcasting companies of TT based on the national tax claims against TT, and the notification of seizure reached each of the broadcasting companies.

Third Obligor;

Amount claimed (won)

Date of decision

Date of service

Seoul Central District Court

2010 Other 20581

Attachment of Claims and

Collection Order

KK

561,163,00

June 17, 2010

6.24 201

MM

1,300,000,000

SS

2,000,000,000

Seoul Central District Court

2010Kadan4312

Provisional Seizure of Claim

KK

1,189,082,400

July 29, 2010

August 2, 2010

MM

SS

Attachment of Claims

(00.Tax secretary, national tax

MM

392,760,020

August 30, 2010

September 2, 2010

SS

392,760,020

Seoul Central District Court

2010 Other 33928

Attachment and Collection Order of Claim

SS

47,000,000

September 15, 2010

September 29, 2010

D. Plaintiffs’ claim for the payment of contributions

○ On October 6, 2010, the Plaintiff UA demanded each broadcasting company to pay the 1-3 contribution fee claims to him, not TT, by notifying each broadcasting company of the termination of the exclusive contract with TT.

In October 2010, the Plaintiff Kim Z also sought to KK and SS with respect to the amount of the contribution unpaid to T, and requested payment of the 4 and 5 contribution charges against KK and SS.

(e) Deposit by each broadcasting company;

Each broadcasting company between December 9, 2010 and November 15, 2011, claimed the right to each of the paid claims by the plaintiffs (celetains), TT (celetains), Defendant BB (celetains), and many other Defendants (e.g., seizures, collection creditors, collection creditors, provisional seizure creditors, etc.). Each broadcasting company as its broadcasting company claims the right to each of the paid claims. It is unclear who is true creditor because the validity of exclusive contract, the validity of the assignment of claims, the validity of the assignment of claims is unknown, and there is a competition between seizures and provisional seizures on each of the paid claims, and each of the paid claims is deposited by mixing each of the paid charges as stated in each of the subparagraphs in the Seoul Central District Court in accordance with Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1 through 6, 9 through 11, 13 through 15, Eul 5, 25, 26, 28;

IF Nos. 3, 6, 8, 12, 1 and 2(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(

(c)each entry, part of witness FF testimony, purport of the whole pleadings;

3. The plaintiffs' assertion

○ The Plaintiffs are parties who have concluded a contribution contract with each broadcasting company for each program, and the Plaintiff’s 1 through 3 contribution fee claims shall revert to the Plaintiff’s UA, 4, 5 contribution fee claims to the Plaintiff’s Z, and even if TT has received the contribution fees from each broadcasting company, they are merely those received in the status of each Plaintiff’s agent or custodian.

○ Even if the Plaintiffs are not recognized as a party to each contribution contract, the broadcasting company’s broadcasting contribution contract of an artist can be deemed as a principal contractor, TT as a kind of contract, and the Plaintiffs. However, the Plaintiffs failed to receive two or more of the contribution fees to be paid by TT, which are the principal contractor, each broadcasting company is obligated to directly pay the Plaintiffs the contribution fees in accordance with Article 14(1)3 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”).

○ Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of deposited money against the Plaintiff’s 1 to 3 contribution fee claims is against the Plaintiff’s UAA, and the Defendant’s claim for the payment of deposited money against the 4 to 5 contribution fee claims are against the Defendant Kim Z, and the Plaintiffs seek each confirmation on each claim for the payment of deposited money.

4. Whether the plaintiffs are parties to each program contribution contract with each broadcasting company

A. As alleged by the plaintiffs, as to whether each of the plaintiffs directly concluded a contribution contract on each of the above programs with each of the broadcasting companies as seen above, it is difficult to recognize it only by the results of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7 through 10, 13 through 15, and 18 through 24, witness FF testimony, and fact inquiry about the SS of this court, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the parties who entered into an agreement with each broadcasting company on the contribution of each of the above programs are TT in light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 10, 23, 24, Eul evidence Nos. 25 through 27, Eul evidence No. 3, 8, and 10

① Under each exclusive contract, the Plaintiffs and Telecommunication agreed that “T shall take charge of planning and interference necessary for the Plaintiffs to engage in entertainment activities in Korea and abroad, shall have exclusive rights to act on behalf of the Plaintiffs, to manage all legal acts by proxy, and to exercise all the rights to negotiate, conclude, maintain, and terminate the contribution contract (Article 3).” “In the event that the Plaintiffs received a request from the outside, without going through TT, any proposal related to entertainment activities should proceed through consultation with TT after explaining the contractual relationship with the other outside (Article 5); and “All profits from the Plaintiff’s entertainment activities shall, in principle, be paid to the Plaintiffs after the receipt of TT through ex post facto settlement in consultation with the Plaintiffs (Article 7).”

② In fact, TT performed the business of negotiating, concluding, and receiving the payment of the Plaintiffs’ broadcast contribution in accordance with each exclusive agreement with the Plaintiffs, and each broadcasting company seems to have been well aware of the terms and conditions of the aforementioned exclusive agreement concluded with the Plaintiff.

③ Each broadcasting company has paid not only each of the instant programs but also other programs to TT.

④ After receiving the contribution fee from each broadcasting company, TT has paid to each Plaintiff the amount settled in accordance with the provisions of each exclusive agreement.

⑤ After the termination of each exclusive agreement with TT, the Plaintiffs directly requested each broadcasting company to pay the contribution fee.

【MM signed a contribution contract on July 15, 2009 with respect to the Plaintiff UA and TT on the “Unlimited Program” program, and on June 21, 2006, with respect to the “NE” program, and determined that the contribution fee is paid to TT.

7. On June 11, 2010, KK received a written confirmation from the Plaintiff KimZ that “it agrees to the recipient of each program contribution fee as TT”, which seems to be a party to the contribution contract with KK on the premise that it is TT.

④ The Plaintiff KimZ concluded, in writing, each contribution agreement with the MF on June 3, 2005 with respect to the program “on Sundays night” with the MF, and on August 9, 2005 with respect to the “dial TV entertainment” program, but it did not directly conclude each contribution agreement with KK and SS during the exclusive contract period with TT.

B. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

5. Whether the exclusive contract relationship between the plaintiffs and TT constitutes a subcontract transaction under the Subcontract Act

A. The definition of "subcontract transactions" under Article 2 of the Subcontract Act is as shown in the attached Form (2). However, the obligation of the plaintiffs to contribute a broadcast program to be implemented under the exclusive contract with TT is impossible to be re-entrusted as a duty of act that can not be replaced by another person, and it does not fall under any of the "services (services)" as defined in Article 2 (11) and (13) of the Subcontract Act.

B. Therefore, the legal relationship between the plaintiffs and TT under each exclusive contract does not constitute a "subcontract under the Subcontract Act in the form of re-entrustment of the services entrusted by TT from the broadcasting company to the plaintiffs." Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to be the right holder to claim the contribution fees from each broadcasting company under Articles 1 through 5, they cannot be deemed to have the right to claim the payment of the amount corresponding to the first or fifth contribution fees from each of the deposits of this case. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.